Renovation process, like i said, he was issued a permit to unit three on 39th avenue, he started work on the taraval unit as well. Not just light construction, were not talking about painting, or, you know, change carpets. He was excavating the concrete floor. This was for a weeks time. Taking down drywall, during that time. The noise was disruptive, obviously. The fact that he was doing heavy construction, without a permit. We reported this to the city, with a citation number 201963731. I believe that was a friday complaint, and i believe, if i am not mistaken by tuesdaywednesday, the owner was issued a permit to do work at taraval. Instead of issuing a stop order, for his work, the city actually turned around and gave him a permit to continue the work on taraval come overthecounter. The owner violated San Franciscos municipal code under the californias unfair competition law and housing law, because of the rest of the San Francisco residence, including myself, have two apply with the
September 12, 2019. Item two. 220 post street. Conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to october 24, 2019. Under your consent calendar item 3. 101 bayshore boulevard. Conditional use authorization proposed to continue to october 24, 2019. Under regular calendar item 17a and b for case 2018 at 45 tear resconditional use authorization and variance proposed for variance to september 19, 2019. Under discretionary review item 20 for 16058 bow layer row street for an indefinite continuance. I have no other items and no speaker cards. Anyone have any Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . Good afternoon. Ryan patterson on behalf of the project sponsor 45cally bra. I want to give you an update working with neighbors. This is the matter of continuance. To september 19 to conclude notionations. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on items proposed for continuance. Public comment is proposed. Move to continue items 1, 2, 3, 17a and 20. Second. Thank you. On that mo
Remember the fire. I was i across the street watching the fire go up. It was a pretty good fire. He was going up the fire escape, the ladder and im watching him. I could literally see it going six inches back and forth, hes got 70 pounds, with tank and everything, loaded down. So i happened to see him later. I asked him, [laughter], i said, did you i said you must have felt he said, yeah, it was just rotten. Being the firefighter, he kept going. He didnt say i cant go up there, its rotten. And he was breaking a hole in the roof and was very important to get that fire out. But i thought thats why were putting it into the code. Commissioner hardeman right. I always wondered if there was inspection, not by us anyway. This is good, thank you. President nakajo thank you very much, commissioner hardeman as well. We have a quorum and im going to call for the question of adoption. We have a motion by Vice President kovington and seconded by commissioner veronese. All those in favor . Opposed .
But i am very familiar with that section of the Building Code and thats been an enormous frustration. As a retired c. P. A. , im used to opining, but opining on financial matters. I get really annoyed when we have people who are not lawyers opining on the intent of section 103 a . I think because this matter comes before the commission with regularitity, its important to nail this down with a legal opinion and not have this back and forth, left and right movement where people are trying to justify actions that are improper. Thank you for explaining that. The question i think is a real question. I would like to have an answer to it. We may not have that answer today. I would agree with commissioner hillis to the extent the building proposed in its size is too large. Thats the only comment of where i have Common Ground with your comments. I personally do not believe we should be redesigning or resizing the building. But the building as a replacement building is too large. That does not m
Please make sure to silence all cell phones on electronic devices. Replace speaker cards and any documents to be submitted to the clerk. [reading notes] item number 1, 180777, ordinane amending the planning code to require a conditional use authorization for employee cafeterias, as defined, within office space, except for existing employee cafeterias; affirming the planning departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. We had to make some amendments i had to set for one week. Anything you would like to add about this legislation . Clerk just to reiterate that we were to considerable amount of time with all of the stakeholders in i feel like weve got most i think we are in good shape. It is an honor to be your cosponsor. Does mr. Sanchez, not